Main Page | Month Archive | Email Updates | RSS Feed | Print Version

The Public Diplomacy Blog is intended to stimulate dialog among scholars, researchers, practitioners and professionals from around the world in the public diplomacy sphere. The opinions represented here are the authors' own and do not necessarily reflect the views of the USC Center on Public Diplomacy at the Annenberg School.

FIXING FOREIGN MINISTRIES: MESSAGE FROM OZ
APR 1, 2009 - 9:00AM PST
Posted by Daryl Copeland
All posts by this author

Earlier this month, a blue ribbon panel, appointed in 2008 by Australia’s Lowy Institute for International Policy to enquire into that country's foreign ministry and representational capacity, reported a deep diplomatic deficit and has recommended sweeping reform and major reinvestment. The findings, which include a series of recommendations on public diplomacy, are widely applicable and warrant close inspection. The short of it, made plain in this and many other studies, is that foreign ministries, and the conventional diplomatic business model which they embody, have not adapted well to the challenges of the globalization era. They are rigid rather than fluid and hierarchic rather than networked, authoritarian rather than innovative, and staffed for the most part by a cadre of employees whose skill sets no longer fill the bill. Too thin on the ground at home, even more severely overstretched abroad, an under-financed diplomatic corps is without the necessary tools or capacity required to respond to the rapidly changing environment in which it operates. The crisis is systemic. For those with a preference for talking over fighting, for genuine dialogue, and for less costly, non-military approaches to conflict resolution, fixing foreign ministries must become a priority. In that respect, the release of the Lowy Institute report provides a useful point of departure. The Frame In Guerrilla Diplomacy; and under the mantra of relevance, effectiveness, and transformation; I argue the need to re-imagine diplomats as globalization managers and foreign ministries as globalization entrepots - in effect, international policy docking mechanisms for national governments. Absent this re- framing, governments will find it difficult, if not impossible, to manage the vexing range of 21st century issues technology - climate change, pandemic disease, resource scarcity - which are rooted in science and driven by technology. The supple, directed treatment of S&T-based issues by the staff of foreign ministries is a necessary pre-condition for global security and durable development. Yet, for too many observers diplomacy seems boring, its institutions outmoded, its practitioners somewhat akin to pin-striped dinosaurs… To that I reply, not so…or, at least, not necessarily so. Foreign ministries do matter. There is certainly much more to these complex organizations than might be gleaned from a glance at the lines, boxes, and titles found in their organigrams. Indeed, an understanding of elements of public administration is vital; coming to terms with the myriad institutional interactions of people, policy, process, budgets, and programs can yield critical insights. At the highest level of analysis, foreign ministries can be seen as knowledge-rich information producers with an integrating, catalytic role to play for all national governments. But – and this is a big but - detached from domestic constituencies and oriented away from national politics, they are both too foreign, and too much like ministries. Much more effort is required on the home front to demonstrate diplomacy’s value added. Diplomacy, the foreign ministry, and the foreign service are more, respectively, than the animus, the machinery, and the face of a nation to the world. All are closely related, and in fact, interdependent -…... FULL TEXT
 
Read Comments (2) | Add Your Own

Read Comments:

Jeff Malone on April 12, 2009 @ 3:33 pm:
Whilst there have been no official comments on the Lowy report (at least none that I have seen), it is worth comparing to the findings of a Senate committee report on Australia's public diplomacy (released in late 2007) and the Government response to it (in Jan 2009 - noting that a change of government happened between these two events): http://is.gd/r4Oh

David on April 19, 2009 @ 6:25 am:
as a jouno works at Radio AUstralia and a student current researching PD, i would say (regretfully) that Australia's PD in terms of media and communication is close to nil existence in some of its key targeting areas. RA's Chinese service for example, has only a handful of staffs and produces stagnated and competely outdated content. Considering the increasing importance of China and the close economic relationship between China and Australia, it's a pity to see virtually no content reform or additional resources allocation at sight, and the financial crisis would probably impede any will to attempt in years

Add a Comment:

Your Name:
Your Email:
Comment:
Please enter the word you see in the image below:

NOTE: Comments are moderated by CPD and will typically be posted if they are relevant and respectful.